Comparison of Absorption and Adsorption Processes for CO2 Dehydration
Keywords:dehydration, carbon capture, adsorption, absorption, Aspen HYSYS
AbstractCaptured carbon dioxide (CO2) must be dehydrated prior to transport or storage because of possibilities for corrosion and hydrate formation. CO2 dehydration can be performed by absorption, typically into triethylene glycol (TEG) followed by desorption or by adsorption on a solid (typically a molecular sieve) followed by desorption. In this work, the process simulation program Aspen HYSYS is used to calculate material and heat balances for a TEG based absorption process and a molecular sieve adsorption process to achieve less than 30 ppm water in the dehydrated gas. The absorption and stripping columns were modelled using a specified Murphree stage efficiency on each absorption and stripping stage. In the base case, the absorption and adsorption pressure was 40 bar and the inlet temperature was 30 °C. An additional stripping column was added below the desorption column to obtain a low water content. In the molecular sieve based process, all the process units except the adsorption/stripping units were simulated in Aspen HYSYS. It is simulated reasonable process alternatives for CO2 dehydration down to water levels of 30 and 5 ppm. The simulations combined with cost estimation indicate that a TEG based process is the most economic process both for dehydration down to 30 ppm and to 5 ppm water in dehydrated gas.
S. A. Affandy, A. Kurniawan, R. Handogo, J. P Sutikno and I-L. Chien. Technical and economic evaluation of triethylene glycol regeneration process using flash gas as stripping gas in a domestic natural gas dehydration unit. Engineering Reports, 2020;2:e12153, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/eng2.12153. [Accessed: Nov. 29, 2020].
H. Ali. Techno-economic analysis of CO2 capture concepts. PhD Thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway, 2019.
L. Buit, M. Ahmad, W. Mallon and F. Hage. CO2 EuroPipe study of the occurrence of free water in dense phase CO2 transport. Energy Procedia, 4:3056-3062, 2011.
I.S. Cole, P. Corrigan, S. Sim and N. Birbilis. Corrosion of pipelines used for CO2 transport in CCS: Is it a real problem? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(7):749-756, 2011.
M. Dharwadkar, TECHNOLOGY SELECTION REPORT-CAPTURE. Shell Canada Energy, 2011. Available: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/46ddba1a-7b86-4d7c-b8b6-8fe33a60fada/resource/b3b052a0-b2ef-4cfc-95b1-b363b9272546/download/technology_selection_report.pdf. [Accessed: Nov 29, 2020].
H. Secker and E. Bergene. Drying of CO2 in Process Applications using Molecular Sieves. Gas Processors Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2016. file:///C:/Users/cacca/Downloads/GPApaperCO2Drying290316%20(1).pdf
Fortum Oslo Varme. FEED Study Report DG3 (redacted version). Fortum Oslo Varme AS, Oslo, Norway, no. NC03-KEA-A-RA-0025, 2020.
G. P. S. A. (GPSA), Engineering Data Book, 10. ed., Tulsa, Oklahoma, Gas Processing Suppliers Association, 1987.
J. Kemper, L. Sutherland, J. Watt and S. Santos. Evaluation and analysis of the performance of dehydration units for CO2 capture. Energy Procedia, 63:7568-7584, 2014.
B. S. Kinigoma and G. O. Ani, Comparison of Gas Dehydration Methods based on Energy Consumption. J. of Appl. Sci. and Environmental Management, 20(2):253-258, 2016. A.L. Kohl and R. Nielsen. Gas purification, 5th ed., Gulf Publication, Houston. 1997.
Z. Y. Kong, A. Mahmoud, S. Liu and J. Sunarso. Development of a techno-economic framework for natural gas dehydration via absorption using Tri-Ethylene Glycol: a comparative study on conventional and stripping gas dehydration processes. J Chem Technol Biotechnol, 94:955-963, 2019.
P. Nitsche. Comparison of absorption and adsorption processes for CO2 dehydration. Master thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway, Porsgrunn, Norway, 2020.
Norcem. Redacted version of FEED Study (DG3) Report. Norcem HeidelbergCement Group, Brevik, Norway, no. NC03-NOCE-A-RA-0009, 2019.
K. I. Okoli. Comparison of CO2 dehydration processes after CO2 capture. Master thesis, University College of South-Eastern Norway, 2017.
Prosernat. Glycol dehydration best process. http://www.prosernat.com/en/solutions/upstream/gas-dehydration/drizo.html. [Accessed: April 11, 2016].
Shell Canada Energy. Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project - ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT 2018, Shell Canada Energy, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/c7969bcb-d510-48b4-aef5-7cc6d92d183a/resource/b1480661-2efa-4b9d-a6e6-5ca47021c399/download/quest-annual-summary-alberta-department-of-energy-2018.pdf. [Accessed Nov. 29, 2020].
C.H. Twu, V. Tassone, W.D. Sim and S. Watanasiri. Advanced equation of state method for modeling TEG–water for glycol gas dehydration. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 228-229: 213-221, 2005.
F.E. Uilhorn. Evaluating the risk of hydrate formation in CO2 pipelines under transient operation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 14(5):177-182, 2013.
L.E. Øi and M. Fazlagic. Glycol dehydration of captured carbon dioxide using Aspen Hysys simulation. Sims 55 Conference, Aalborg, Denmark. In Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings SIMS 55, pp. 167-174, 2014.
L.E. Øi and B. Rai. Simulation of Glycol Processes for CO2 Dehydration. 9th EUROSIM Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Oulu, Finland 12-16 September 2016. In Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, pp. 168-173. DOI: 10.3384/ecp17142168
Copyright (c) 2022 Lars Erik Øi, Philip Nitsche, Solomon Aromada
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.